Flack, Distances And Angles

One thing about Derek Flack that we can all agree on is that he's an expert "own-foot-in-mouth" implanter.

Remember me saying right at the beginning how ridiculous were all his interventions and how difficult it was to know where to begin debunking them? I hope by now that you’ve seen the reality in my words.

This man’s memory is selectively flawed, forgetting what are the most obvious and generic details but being very precise about all those little details that are relevant for the “Black Hatted Cause”.

We’ve seen that almost all relevant details to the Black Hats have a common characteristic: they’re fiction.

There's been good BH fiction and bad BH fiction. The good was what we’ve been told in such an excellent way that many take them as fact still today. But others have been so poorly delivered that even BHs avoid any mention of them.

In what exact position did Kate find the window shutters in is a good example of very poor story of this case.

Derek Flack is a one very, very poor storyteller.

But within all his poorly told stories there’s something on which he flunks on all counts: anything that involves angles and distances.

Flack considers Pimpleman’s attitude and posture suspicious solely because the man was looking fixedly at something in the opposite direction in which Flack was walking.

At what was Pimpleman supposedly looking at isn’t exactly clear from Flack’s words. It could be a parked white van, a person near or inside that vehicle, the back gate of Apartment 5A or the terrace and windows of that apartment.

One thing of which we’re certain is that Pimpleman was allegedly looking in the “opposite direction”. Knowing the direction of Flack's movements and also all of the above is located in the same vicinity, we can state that Flack is trying to tell us that Pimpleman was staring fixedly, obsessively, in the following direction:

That means roughly a 30º angle in relation with the Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins:

This is confirmed in the Mockumentary in both reconstructions made about the witnesses JW and TS:

Now, we all know by heart the surroundings of Apartment 5A, both in the front as well as in the back.

We all know that there’s a pedestrian pathway at the back, running between the apartment building and the Tapas pool complex.

We also know that if you're coming from the pathway, by turning right at the end and walking 10/15 meters down the road, you'll find the Tapas complex’s entrance.

We all also have the perception that on the other side of the road of this entrance  there’s a parking lot, on which top corner is supposed to have Pimpleman been seen on three separate accounts.

Basically we all have the perception that on the other side of the road in front of the pedestrian pathway is just a wall.

To all those of us more familiar with the case we have one particular reference about the location in question: the Edgar/Tanner discrepancy.

Where it was deemed “perfectly natural” for Tanner to have confused seeing two adult men and a stroller of being near the back gate of Apartment 5A with a spot located on the other side of the street where Gerry clearly remembers to have been when he talked to Jez Wilkins.

To sum up, we all, by now, have a clear perception of the space disposition of the various elements present in the referred site.

All? No, not all of us do. Derek Flack doesn’t. And as we’ll see, nor does Dave Edgar although with this particular gentleman I do think it has much more to do with petrifaction of the grey matter rather than having to do with any lack of perception.

Derek Flack is asked by the PJ to make a drawing of what he says he’s seen, or at least the tidbits he claims to remember because, as we’ve seen, it’s almost as much what he doesn’t recollect as is what he says he does.

He makes two attempts to make up this drawing.

That in itself is strange. Everyone is entitled to mistakes. By scribbling here and there as one's drawing one corrects oneself until one's satisfied with the end result. The idea is not to produce a work of art but to provide information. To have to redo the whole drawing as we’ll see, can only be explained by too many gross mistakes that make it impossible any sort of correction.

This is Flack’s first attempt:

As can be seen, the pedestrian pathway is directly on the opposite side of the street of the parking lot, which as we've shown, clearly is not. This is Flack’s first attempt, compared with reality:

The total misconception between the various existing elements is only achieved by misplacing the whole right side of Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins 15 metres further up North.

This is almost double the distance of Edgar/Tanner’s discrepancy. Remember, Flack is not a stranger in town. He owns an apartment in PDL and says that he usually spends significant periods of the year there.

This drawing makes the Pimpleman to have been on the other side of the road in a spot corresponding somewhere between the pedestrian walkway and Apartment 5A’s backgate.

The disconnection of what he says and what he draws is evident.

Not all of us have been blessed with drawing capabilities. In fact, most of us haven't, and Flack may well be one of the majority.

But even for those who lack this skill there still are basics. For example, one draws the eyes, the nose and the mouth, however childishly, inside the line that outlines the face.

To put them outside it, it makes one either to be a genius, like Picasso, or to suffer from some serious cognitive impairment.

And that is what Flack does. I'm not saying he's a genius, or that he's impaired, just saying he doesn't know what he's drawing. Not criticizing his drawing abilities but his capability to provide information. If there was one thing, and one thing only that the drawing had to convey, what would that be?

It would be the fact, stated and restated, that Pimpleman was looking in the “opposite direction”. That just had to be as explicit as possible in that drawing.

All else could be disproportionate in size and distance, but the one thing it cannot be accepted for Flack to get wrong is the direction of the arrow indicating from where and to where Pimpleman was looking. It had to be the nearest possible to the direction opposite in which Flack was walking. Certainly not almost 90º from it as was drawn!

But Flack makes a second attempt:

Much more accurate, in terms of message to be passed. If it wasn’t fiction, I would say it would be in conformity with his statements.

But before I debunk this “opposite direction” thing let me just show you how all blatantly ridiculous Dave Edgar and all those involved in producing the Mockumentary are.

I’m a blogger. I don’t get paid a penny for what I’m doing. The time I spend reading, analyzing and writing is at the expense, by choice, of time I could be doing other things. Some people have a passion for stamps, others for embroidery and/or needlepoint, I have this thing for bridge, golf,  justice and citizenship.

But those involved in the Mockumentary were paid to study the subject and come up with a visual document supposed to deceive us the best way possible. It was an impossible task indeed, but the least one could demand from them would be them having the decency of making a minimum effort.

The Derek Flack sequence demonstrates exactly the opposite.

Let me take you to the part of the Mockumentary whereby, inexplicably, Dave Edgar explains to the witnesses themselves what they were supposed to have seen. Funnily enough, he does this only with those that are playing themselves, TS and Flack, while we see no such preparation being taken care with the actress that played JW. Isn’t that just something?

But check out when Dave is explaining the scene to Derek and Christine in which, oddly again, she seems to be much more interested than him:

But look on which drawing does Edgar base all his explanations to this particular couple:

The first one. The absolutely wrong one. The arrogance is absolutely revolting.

This is how much they cared about the information they were filmed providing. That’s the respect they showed the general public.

But let’s get back to what matters, and that is to continue proving that what Derek Flack has to say doesn't fit reality.

On 2007/05/05:

“... that was standing on a sidewalk corner looking (this being the reason he was suspicious of him) towards the apartment from where MADELINE would later disappear.

He added that, in the alignment from where the individual was looking, at the other side of the street, was parked a vehicle... “

On 2007/06/05:

“Following this fact, when walking this last street in the descending way, the deponent crossed with an individual who was positioned in a place situated on the existing sidewalk, on the left when descending, at the entrance of a small parking lot existing in front of that enterprise’s Reception.

At the moment in which he crossed with this individual, walking in the descending way, the deponent looked at him frontally, as he was facing the opposite street direction – that is, looking in the opposite direction on which he was going – appearing to observe attentively the movements adjacent to the place where the said vehicle was parked.

...

Therefore, refers having realized that the individual above referenced observed fixedly the area in question, being very concentrated on his objective, to the point of not even having detected the presence of the herein deponent.

....

To the question asked, refers that, initially, he had associated the individual in question with the vehicle referred above, because he had realized that he looked ostensibly at the vicinity of where it was parked.

....

Asked to justify this fact, clarifies that it happened as such because he would ascertain that the place where said vehicle was parked would be located a short distance from a pedestrian access existent on the lateral part of the residential building in which would be located the apartment in question, through which you can directly access the respective balcony.

Therefore, he would manage conclude that the individual was controlling the existing movements near that access, and, eventually inside the respective apartment.

Moreover, he wishes to add that, after having particularly reflected on such incidences, has concluded that one of the facts that alerted him to the movements of the individual in question would substantiate in the circumstance that he became aware that he looked ostensibly at the location where would happen the facts that would originate the present enquiry, during the scarce moments he had witnessed his fixation on the location referenced above.

Asked to reveal in detail the location where was parked the said vehicle, the respondent would refer not being able to specify whether if it was exactly in front of the said access, or instead, slightly above or below.

Even so would guarantee that it was precisely in its direction, and at a distance that looked pretty short to him.”

So it’s pretty clear and straightforward that the ONLY single fact that makes Derek Flack find Pimpleman suspicious is the way in which he was looking at the vicinity of Apartment 5A “very concentrated on his objective, to the point of not even having detected the presence of the herein deponent “

But is that really so?

If I asked, you already know the answer: no it isn’t so.

You see, unlike with the other witnesses, JW and TS, where Pimpleman appears effectively looking in the direction of Apartment 5A, when it comes to Flack, he’s, amazingly, not looking anywhere near it:

Oh say you, you can’t really say from the photo where exactly is Pimpleman looking at. After all it can all be just an optical illusion created by the camera’s position which makes it seem that he’s looking in a direction parallel to the wall and not towards the vicinity of Apartment 5A.

Sorry, no optical illusion here whatsoever. The Mockumentary shows very clearly that Pimpleman is looking somewhere between Derek Flack and the that wall:

This means simply this:

So why did Derek Flack find Pimpleman suspicious in any way just because he was looking in the direction he was coming from?

We must also mention Flack’s concept of distance. He says “Even so would guarantee that it was precisely in its direction, and at a distance that looked pretty short to him.”

The distance between Pimpleman and the gate is around 20 metres. That’s almost 22 yd/66 ft, just about 5 OPEL CORSA vans lined up. I don’t know about you, but that hardly qualifies as a “pretty short” for a distance, and not one that one can evaluate the direction with precision in just 1.5 seconds.

Plus that would be a thing "rather" difficult to evaluate anyhow taking into account the other person was not even looking in the direction one says he is...

On our last post, I said that there were two things that the scriptwriters had failed to tell Derek Flack. The first was that Barrigton Norton was 56 yrs old. Not 25/30 yr old.

The second thing that they didn’t tell him, he should have asked: why on earth would Norton park his van right in front of Apartment 5A’s gate, get out of the car, walk 20 meters down the road and turn around and observe the said apartment standing at the corner of a... parking lot?

Wouldn’t it make much more sense if he just drove and parked the car in that particular parking lot? Say, just like the vehicle I circled below...